Advances in Biomimetics Part 1 pptx

ADVANCES IN BIOMIMETICS
Edited by Anne George
Advances in Biomimetics
Edited by Anne George
Published by InTech
Janeza Trdine 9, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Copyright © 2011 InTech
All chapters are Open Access articles distributed under the Creative Commons
Non Commercial Share Alike Attribution 3.0 license, which permits to copy,
distribute, transmit, and adapt the work in any medium, so long as the original
work is properly cited. After this work has been published by InTech, authors
have the right to republish it, in whole or part, in any publication of which they
are the author, and to make other personal use of the work. Any republication,
referencing or personal use of the work must explicitly identify the original source.
Statements and opinions expressed in the chapters are these of the individual contributors
and not necessarily those of the editors or publisher. No responsibility is accepted
for the accuracy of information contained in the published articles. The publisher
assumes no responsibility for any damage or injury to persons or property arising out
of the use of any materials, instructions, methods or ideas contained in the book.

Publishing Process Manager Ivana Lorkovic
Technical Editor Teodora Smiljanic
Cover Designer Martina Sirotic
Image Copyright Stéphane Bidouze, 2010. Used under license from Shutterstock.com
First published March, 2011
Printed in India
A free online edition of this book is available at www.intechopen.com
Additional hard copies can be obtained from
Advances in Biomimetics, Edited by Anne George
p. cm.
ISBN 978-953-307-191-6

free online editions of InTech
Books and Journals can be found at
www.intechopen.com

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Preface IX
A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics 1
Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent
Biomineralization and Biomimetic
Synthesis of Biomineral and Nanomaterials 13
Ming-Guo Ma and Run-Cang Sun
The Biomimetic Mineralization Closer
to a Real Biomineralization 51
Binbin Hu, Zhonghui Xue and Zuliang Du
The Biomimetic Approach to Design Apatites
for Nanobiotechnological Applications 75
Norberto Roveri and Michele Iafisco
Recent Advances in Biomimetic
Synthesis Involving Cyclodextrins 103
Y. V. D. Nageswar, S. Narayana Murthy, B. Madhav and J. Shankar
Bioinspired Assembly of Inorganic Nanoplatelets
for Reinforced Polymer Nanocomposites 127

Tzung-Hua Lin, Wei-Han Huang, In-kook Jun and Peng Jiang
Beyond a Nature-inspired Lotus Surface:
Simple Fabrication Approach Part I. Superhydrophobic and
Transparent Biomimetic Glass Part II.
Superamphiphobic Web of Nanofibers 145
Hyuneui Lim
Learning from Biosilica: Nanostructured Silicas and Their
Coatings on Substrates by Programmable Approaches 159
Ren-Hua Jin and Jian-Jun Yuan
Biomimetic Fiber-Reinforced Compound Materials 185
Tom Masselter and Thomas Speck
Contents
Contents
VI
Creating Scalable and Addressable
Biomimetic Membrane Arrays in Biomedicine 211
Jesper Søndergaard Hansen and Claus Hélix Nielsen
Cerasomes: A New Family
of Artificial Cell Membranes with Ceramic Surface 231
Jun-ichi Kikuchi and Kazuma Yasuhara
Biomimetic Model Membrane Systems Serve
as Increasingly Valuable in Vitro Tools 251
Mary T. Le, Jennifer K. Litzenberger and Elmar J. Prenner
Biomimetic Membranes as a Tool to Study Competitive
Ion-Exchange Processes on Biologically Active Sites 277
Beata Paczosa-Bator, Jan Migdalski and Andrzej Lewenstam
Mechanism of Co-salen Biomimetic
Catalysis Bleaching of Bamboo Pulp 297
Yan-Di Jia and Xue-Fei Zhou
Bioinspired Strategies

for Hard Tissue Regeneration 305
Anne George and Chun-Chieh Huang
Biomimetics in Bone Cell Mechanotransduction:
Understanding Bone’s Response to Mechanical Loading 317
Marnie M Saunders
Novel Biomaterials with Parallel Aligned Pore Channels
by Directed Ionotropic Gelation of Alginate:
Mimicking the Anisotropic Structure of Bone Tissue 349
Florian Despang, Rosemarie Dittrich and Michael Gelinsky
Bioinspired and Biomimetic Functional Hybrids
as Tools for Regeneration of Orthopedic Interfaces 373
Gopal Pande, R. Sravanthi and Renu Kapoor
Advances in Biomimetic Apatite
Coating on Metal Implants 397
C.Y. Zhao, H.S. Fan and X.D. Zhang
Biomimetic Hydroxyapatite Deposition
on Titanium Oxide Surfaces for Biomedical Application 429
Wei Xia, Carl Lindahl, Jukka Lausmaa and Håkan Engqvist
Biomimetic Topography:
Bioinspired Cell Culture Substrates and Scaffolds 453
Lin Wang and Rebecca L. Carrier
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18

Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
Contents
VII
Bioengineering the Vocal Fold:
A Review of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Applications 473
Rebecca S. Bartlett and Susan L. Thibeault
Design, Synthesis and Applications
of Retinal-Based Molecular Machines 489
Diego Sampedro, Marina Blanco-Lomas,
Laura Rivado-Casas and Pedro J. Campos
Development and Experiments
of a Bio-inspired Underwater Microrobot with 8 Legs 505
Shuxiang Guo, Liwei Shi and Kinji Asaka
Chapter 22
Chapter 23
Chapter 24

Pref ac e
Biomimetics is the science of emulating nature’s design. In nature, living organisms
synthesize mineralized tissues and this process of biomineralization is under strict bio-
logical control. It involves the interactions of several biological macromolecules among
themselves and with the mineral components. Generally, natures design principles are
based on a “Bo om-Up” strategy. Such processes lead to the formation of hierarchically
structured organic-inorganic composites with mechanical properties optimized for a
given function. A common theme in mineralized tissues is the intimate interaction be-
tween the organic and inorganic phases and this leads to the unique properties seen in
biological materials. Therefore, understanding natures design principles and ultimately
mimicking the process may provide new approaches to synthesize biomaterials with

unique properties for various applications. Biomimetics as a scientifi c discipline has
experienced an exceptional development. Its potential in several applications such as
medical, veterinary, dental science, material science and nanotechnology bears witness
to the importance of understanding the processes by which living organisms exert an
exquisite control on the fabrication of various materials. Despite several breakthroughs,
there exist only a limited number of methods for the preparation of advanced materi-
als. Consequently, precisely controlling the architecture and composition of inorganic
materials still remain enigmatic. Biological organisms have the extraordinary ability to
fabricate a wide variety of inorganic materials into complex morphologies that are hi-
erarchically structured on the nano, micro and macroscales with high fi delity. The next
generation of biologically inspired materials fabrication methods must draw inspiration
from complex biological systems.
The interaction between cells, tissues and biomaterial surfaces are the highlights of the
book “Advances in Biomimetics”. In this regard the eff ect of nanostructures and nano-
topographies and their eff ect on the development of a new generation of biomaterials
including advanced multifunctional scaff olds for tissue engineering are discussed. The
2 volumes contain articles that cover a wide spectrum of subject ma er such as diff erent
aspects of the development of scaff olds and coatings with enhanced performance and
bioactivity, including investigations of material surface-cell interactions.
Anne George
University of Illinois at Chicago,
Department of Oral Biology,
Chicago,
USA

1
A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics
Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent
Université Paris 1Panthéon-Sorbonne/IUF
France

1. Introduction
Gecko’s feet, lotus leaves, blue butterfly wings, spider’s silk, fireflies, mother-of-pearl…. All
these wonders of nature, which traditionally filled the pages of natural history magazines
have attracted the attention of materials scientists over the past decades. They have often
been presented as models to design and engineer optimal structures. And this renewed
interest in natural systems has undoubtedly brought about innovating strategies in
chemistry, materials science and nanotechnology.
But what exactly does mimicking nature mean? Can we really transfer nature’s
“technology” to human projects? Does talking about “nature’s technology” even make
sense?
The view of technology copying nature is as fascinating as it is deceiving. We all know that
in aeronautics, repeated attempts to mimic birds’ flight have led to spectacular failures.
Hence the basic principles of modern technology are anything but inspired by nature: The
mechanical machines, metallic alloys, combustion engines, jet engines, direct synthesis of
ammonia, etc… have no equivalent in nature. They proceed from the fundamental laws of
physics, thermodynamics, and aerodynamics rather than from imitating nature. At the other
end of the spectrum, we all know a few examples of successful inventions, such as the
Velcro, which was inspired from cockleburs clinging to socks or dog’s fur after a hike in the
hills. Yet failures to imitate nature by far outnumber the rare successful biomimetic
inventions. (Vogel, 1998) Does this mean that biomimicry strategies are generally doomed to
fail?
This chapter will consider the current biomimetic trends from a broad historical perspective.
Its aims are to pin-point what prompted the renewed interest in biological structures and
processes in the field of high-tech materials, and to clarify what kind of relations exist
between nature and artefacts in emerging technologies. Finally, it will make the case for a
paradoxical use of mimicry strategies.
2. Challenging nature
First of all, it is important to keep in mind that chemistry is the subject of a number of strong
and deeply rooted stereotypes in our culture. The image spread by Goethe’s Faust and
Shelley’s Frankenstein of the alchemist mixing mysterious liquors in a dark laboratory,

trying to rival Nature , has prompted the association of chemistry with the mythical figure
Hubris, or even Man’s original sin of pride. Chemistry thus ends up irresistibly connoting
the idea of boundary transgression.
Advances in Biomimetics

2
This stereotype is reminiscent of the philosophical disputes raised by medieval alchemists’
attempts to make gold. They were blamed for counterfeit, because according to the
prevailing scholastic culture, there was literally an essential difference between natural gold
and alchemist’s gold. The latter could only be an imitation of the real thing. Artificial gold
may have looked like its natural counterpart, but it had to be deprived of the ‘substantial
form’ inherent to natural gold. (Emerton,1994) This argument was based on Aristotle’s view
of technology (technê) as imitation of nature (physis). The view that artefacts were necessarily
deprived of inner movement or ‘substantial form’ was propagated in medieval times by the
scholastic tradition, and constituted an obstacle to technological advances . Alchemical and
mechanical arts were blamed for being ‘against nature’. (Newmann, 1989)
The resilience of the cultural stereotype seeing chemistry as being against nature, is the
symptom of the values attached to the cultural boundary between nature and artefact, as
well as between inanimate and animate matter. Throughout history, the culture of chemistry
has been associated with the promotion of artificial over natural. Significantly, early
attempts to produce in the laboratory natural products normally made inside living
organisms - such as urea -, were used for metaphysical purposes to fight against vitalism
rather than for technological purposes. The claim that Wölher’s synthesis of urea in 1828
destroyed the metaphysical belief in the vital force is a legend forged by nineteenth-century
chemists wanting to demonstrate that life was merely a set of physico-chemical phenomena.
(Brooke, 1968, Ramberg, 2000) The urea mythology is still alive today in chemists’
communities.
Indeed, such metaphysical challenge was an integral part of Marcellin Berthelot’s defence of
chemical synthesis. He planned to synthesize all the compounds made by living organisms,
using only elements and the range of molecular forces. (Berthelot, 1860) Starting with the

four basic elements—carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen—and proceeding
systematically from the most simple to the most complex compounds, he boasted that
chemists would synthesize the most complex compounds and dissipate the mystery of life.
Such attitude made it easy for physiologists such as Claude Bernard, to retort to arrogant
chemists that synthesizing a product from its elementary principles did not mean getting the
properties of living beings. (Bernard, 1865) Bernard also emphasized that the synthetic
agents used by chemists in their laboratories were very different from those created by
organisms. (Bernard 1866) In brief, chemists could imitate nature’s structures but they could
not emulate its processes and properties.
Should we consider the revival of biomimetism at the turn of the twenty-first century a new
challenge to Bernard’s defence against ambitious chemists? Are we now in a position to
emulate natural processes and properties, and consequently to blur the boundaries between
natural and artificial?
3. Looking for technological solutions in nature
The recent biomimetic trend in materials design seems to proceed from quite different and
more pragmatic motivations. In the context of the fierce competition in space and military
technologies that marked the Cold War period, conventional materials such as wood, metal,
paper, ceramic, and polymers were deemed no longer relevant to making missiles and
rockets. Hence chemists and materials scientists were encouraged to design high-
performance materials with unprecedented combinations of properties for example
materials as light as plastic, with the toughness of steel and the stiffness or heat-resistance of
A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics

3
ceramics. This goal was achieved through the development of a new approach, known as
“materials by design”. (Bensaude-Vincent, 1997) For instance, starting from the functions of
a particular airplane’s wing, the best structure combining the set of properties required to
perform those functions could be designed. The corresponding list of requirements thus
translated into a list of performances, then a list of properties and finally into a structure.
Thus function became the priority in the design process, while material became the

outcome.
The design of materials-by-design relies heavily on the technology of composites. In contrast
to conventional materials with standard specifications and universal applications,
composites created for aerospace and military applications were developed with the
functional demands, and the services expected from the manufactured products in mind.
Such high-tech composite materials, designed for a specific task, in a specific environment,
are so unique that their status becomes more like that of biological structures than standard
commodities.
Therefore modest creatures such as insects, molluscs, butterflies, spiders or even protists
became the subject of intense interest for materials chemists who had to design high-
performance composite structures for space or military programs. Paradoxically, such
materials-by-design came to replace materials extracted from the natural world, even as
chemists and materials scientists came to realize that high-performance, multi-functional
materials already existed in nature. As Stephen Mann -a natural scientist who entered the
field of materials science- wrote: “We can be encouraged by the knowledge that a set of
solutions have been worked out in the biological domain”. (Mann et al., 1989, p. 35)
Amazing combinations of properties and adaptive structures can be found in the merest of
creatures. Sea-urchin or abalone shells, for example, are wonderful bio-mineral structures
made out of a common raw material, calcium carbonate: They present complex
morphologies and assume a variety of functions. Spider webs are made of a an extremely
thin and robust fiber, which offers unrivaled strength-to-weight ratio. Marine biologists
were invited to apply the structure and performance concepts and methods of materials
science to studying mollusc shells. Biomineralization thus emerged as a new research field
which could “teach many lessons” to materials scientists. (Lowenstam H.A. and Weiner S.,
1989; Mann, Werbb,Williams, 1989).
Plant biologists also started applying a materials perspective to their traditional objects of
investigation. Not only are any plants currently being re-evaluated as potential sources of
environmentally safe raw materials (biodegradable polymers or biofuels), but wood, the
oldest and most common construction material, is now being described as ‘a composite
material with long, orientated fibers immersed in a light ligneous matrix, presenting a

complex structure with different levels of organization at different scales’.
The complex hierarchy of structures in biomaterials is what biomimetic chemists most envy
nature. Each different size scale, from the angström to the nanometer and micron, presents
with different structural features. The remarkable properties of bio-materials, such as bone
or tendon are the result of such complex arrangement at different levels, where each level
controls the next one. (National Advisory Board, 1994) In other words, here is a level of
complexity far beyond any of the complex composite structures that materials scientists
have been able to design.
Another feature of biomaterials that scientists try to achieve in their own man-made
materials is their adaptability to the environment. Designing responsive, self-healing
structures was one the major objectives of materials research in the 1990s. To this end,
Advances in Biomimetics

4
programs on smart or intelligent materials were launched. On a basic level, intelligent
materials are structures whose properties can vary according to changes in their
environment or in the operating conditions. For example, materials whose chemical
composition varies according to their surroundings are used in medicine to make
prostheses. Some materials, whose structure varies according to the degree of damage
caused by corrosion or radiations, are able to repair themselves. At the heart of the problem
is the creation of in-built intelligence. It requires to have at least some embedded sensors
(for strain, temperature, or light) and actuators, so that the structure becomes responsive to
external stimuli.
Yet, materials chemists have been impressed by more than the elegance and the
performances of biomaterials. Over the past decades, their attention has turned not only to
composite and multifunctional structures but to nature’s building processes themselves.
Self-assembly, (i.e. the spontaneous arrangement of small building blocks in ordered
patterns) is ubiquitous in living systems. In nature, the mortar and the bricks of biominerals
are made simultaneously and self-assemble through the use of templates while the process
is tightly controlled at each level. Self-assembly is the ultimate dream for materials

designers. Such processes are crucial for designing at the nanoscale, where human hands
and conventional tools are helpless. In addition self-assembly is extremely advantageous
from a technological point of view, because it is a spontaneous and reversible process with
little or no waste and a wide domain of applications. (Whitesides & Boncheva, 2002, Zhang
2003 , MRS Bulletin, 31 January 2006) Thus self-assembly appears as the holy grail of twenty-
first century materials science:
“Our world is populated with machines, non living entities assembled by human
beings from components that humankind has made…. In the 21
st
century, scientists
will introduce a manufacturing strategy based on machines and materials that
virtually make themselves; what is called self-assembly is easiest to define by what
it is not.”(Whitesides, 1995)
How can we make machines and materials build themselves without active human
intervention? To reach this fascinating goal, two contrasting strategies are being developed:
The former which can be labelled ‘soft chemistry’ brings about deep changes in chemical
culture; the latter which can be labelled ‘hybrid technology’ tends towards the substitution
of biotechnology for chemical technology.
4. Two alternative strategies
On the chemical side, many processes are being explored with the aim to make variants of
nature’s highly directional self-assembly. The challenge for chemists is to achieve the self-
assembly of their components and control the resulting morphogenesis, without relying on
instructions from the genetic code. To meet this challenge, chemists have mobilized all the
resources available from physics and chemistry: Chemical transformations in spatially
restricted reaction fields, external solicitations such as gravitational, electric or magnetic fields,
mechanical stress, gradients and flux of reagents during synthesis. They take advantage of all
sorts of interactions between atoms and molecules. Instead of using covalent bonds
traditionally used in organic chemistry, they rely on weak interactions such as hydrogen
bonds, Van der Waals and electrostatic interactions. Chemists also use templates surfactants
mesophases to build such as mesoporous silica, or conduct synthesis in compartments. They

A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics

5
make self-assembled monolayers using microfluidics and surfactants, which in turn enables
the move from atomic and molecular level structures to macroscopic properties.
To imitate nature’s processes of self-assembly, chemists have developed a new “chemical
culture” for which Jacques Livage coined the phrase “chimie douce” (soft chemistry) in
1977. Whereas conventional synthetic chemistry usually takes place in extreme conditions
which are costly in terms of energy, uses large quantities of organic solvents and produces
undesirable waste products, biomimetic chemistry relies on chemical reactions taking place
at room temperature in rather ‘messy’, aqueous environments. Such approach using quasi-
physiological conditions, generating only the renewable, and biodegradable by-products
associated with nature’s synthetic processes, is used to make new materials at the low cost.
The development of soft chemistry has led to the use of increasingly complex raw reagents,
including macromolecules, aggregates and colloids. The ‘Supramolecular chemistry’,
promoted by Jean-Marie Lehn in 1978, makes extensive use of hydrogen bonds in an
attempt to reproduce the receptor-substrate interaction specificity, itself a hallmark of
biology. Thanks to these forms of molecular recognition and assembly mechanisms,
building blocks can self-assemble to form supra-molecular structures, and even generate
macroscopic materials.
As self-assembly relies on spontaneous reactions between building blocks, it presupposes
that the instructions for assembly are either an integral part of the material components
themselves, or that they are the product of their interactions. Although inanimate matter is
deprived of a genetic program, it is not viewed as a passive receptacle upon which
information is imprinted from the outside. Molecules have an inherent activity, an intrinsic
dunamis allowing the construction of a variety of geometrical shapes (helix, spiral, etc). This
dynamic is not an obscure and mysterious vital force; nor is it an algorithm or a set of
instructions embedded in a machine. It is instead a blind process of creation using
combinations and selection without an external designer. Although chemists often use the
paradoxical phrase ‘we self-assemble molecules’, the process takes place without human

involvement. The subject “we” just initiates the process of self-assembly by securing the
necessary agencies and appropriate conditions.
By contrast, in hybrid biotechnology strategies, natural structures and processes are truly
‘engineered’, or at least ‘re-engineered’. Such strategies are often seen to be more promising
than biomimetic attempts. It can seem more reasonable to make use of the exquisite
structures and devices selected by biological evolutionary processes in order to achieve our
own goals, rather than to try and imitate them. In particular, it is rather tempting to use
biological devices of molecular recognition to move along the path prescribed by the so-
called Moore’s law, to build smaller and smaller electronic circuits that assemble without
human manipulation. In 2003 Erez Braun, a biophysicist from Technion at Haïfa announced
that he used the complementarity of DNA strands to make nanotransistors. Now the use of
DNA strands is routine practice in the laboratory, and is awaiting applications on an
industrial scale.
5. Technomimetism
Synthetic biology develops a radical program to rewrite the genetic code formerly
deciphered by molecular biology and genomics over the past decades. It aims to synthesise
artificial organisms beyond what nature has created. In addition to the synthesis of new
functional sequences, synthetic biology includes the design of gene circuits analogous to
Advances in Biomimetics

6
electrical components and circuits, with oscillators, switches, etc…. Another goal is to make
up a minimal genome – deprived of all superfluous functions but able to support a self-
replicating organism. Such minimal genomes could be used as ‘chassis’ on which desired
functions could be grafted in the same way synthetic chemists used to graft functions on a
benzene ring.
Hybridizing and synthetic biology strategies rest on the view that living systems are
collections of devices that can be abstracted from their environment decoupled from other
functions and put at work in artificial machines. They are treated like parts in a clock. The
designer of artificial machines borrows the specific material or devices “invented” by

biological evolution regardless of their specific environment. The fact is that traditional
technologies have been doing just that for centuries. They extracted resources such as wood,
bone, or skin and processed them to make a variety of artefacts. Similarly, nanotechnology
and synthetic biology extract a number of small units, which are as close as possible to the
building blocks of living systems (DNA, bacteria, ), in order to build artefacts from the
bottom-up. Bio-molecular systems are broken down into elementary units, redefined as
functionalities, and abstracted from their own environment. Furthermore, these elementary
units can be processed and modified through genetic engineering to perform specific tasks
in an artificial environment.
Synthetic biology is explicitly aimed at creating bio-systems operating along the principles
of engineering. Instead of making artefacts mimicking nature, synthetic biologists synthesize
living organisms modelled after machines. Synthetic biology can therefore be seen as a
technomimetism, an alternative strategy to biomimetism, which is consequently dismissed
as a poor amateurish strategy:
“If biological engineering were aviation, it would be at the birdman stage: some
observation and some understanding, but largely naive mimicry. For the field to
really take flight, it needs the machinery of synthetic biology. […] At the turn of the
last century, the Wright brothers achieved manned flight not by mimicking natural
systems, but by applying the principles of engineering and aerodynamics.
Similarly, synthetic biology allows us to dispense with biological mimicry and
design life forms uniquely tailored to our needs. In doing so, it will offer not only
fundamental insights into questions of life and vitality but also the type of exquisite
precision and efficiency in creating complex traits that genetic engineers could
previously only dream of. » (anonymous editorial, 2009)
Unlike biomimetism, technomimetism is a kind of engineering which consists in
implementing the rationality of machines in natural systems. Biosystems have to be
redesigned along the principles of engineering because they are too complex or have not
been optimized by evolution for human purposes. Synthetic biologists like Drew Endy are
proud to apply the engineering approach to biosystems. His main purpose is to “make
routine the engineering of synthetic biological systems that behave as expected”. (Endy,

2005) The emphasis is on constructing reliable artefacts that get rid of all the messiness and
unpredictability of natural systems. Standardization of the bioparts is the first requirement
for the design of technomimetic biosystems. The Registry of Standard Bioparts created in
Berkeley is meant as a catalogue of the standard parts bioengineers can compile into a
physical structure once they have targeted their system’s specifications.
A number of synthetic biologists go beyond the ambition of redesigning life according to the
basic principles of engineering. Their purpose is to make life as it could be, rather than as it
A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics

7
is. In order to create living organisms as different as possible from all existing life forms,
they aim to synthesize unnatural DNA. Steven Benner for instance insists that the four-base
DNA code might not be the only way to reproduce and pass on genetic information.
Consequently he has made up an alien DNA, which contains two artificial nucleotides in
addition to A-G-C-T, and which is already licensed and marketed by a company called
EraGen-Bioscience. Benner’s ambition is to expand the genetic information system to twelve
bases. Owing to the difficulty of confining genetically modified organisms to laboratories,
his “alien genetics” is promoted as a way to circumvent the risks of contaminating the
environment, and possibly as a way to support life on other planets, to create new parallel
forms of life.
6. A reciprocal mimesis
Is it a mere coincidence that a strong movement of technomimetism runs parallel to an
equally strong movement of biomimetism? In a famous study of machines and organisms,
French philosopher Georges Canguilhem noticed that organisms have often been described
in technological terms, even though there is no reason why a priori, this analogy between
organisms and machines should not work the other way round. (Canguilhem, 1947) In fact a
quick glimpse at history suggests that the analogy works both ways.
While Aristotle, in his Physics, claimed that technology imitates nature in his biological
works, he described nature according to the model of technology. Human arts provided a
lot of images that helped clarify how nature worked in living beings. They served as

models to understand that all natural beings were end-directed. “As technê, so phusis” was a
conviction that informed Greek medicine. (Von Staden, 2007).
By contrast, when modern science emerged in the seventeenth century, nature was
conceived according to the model of machines, and described as a passive, rigid, precise
clock mechanism. Descartes’ theory of animal machines spread a mechanical understanding
of life, with the mind being the exception. Later, eighteenth-century materialist philosophers
repudiated Descartes’ separation between mind and body, and claimed that all human
functions were mechanical processes. It is against this philosophical background that
Jacques de Vaucanson or Pierre Jaquet-Droz created their famous automata. (Riskin, 2007)
These ancestors of modern robots were used to test the mechanical views of mind and body
as much as for entertainment.
In the course of the twentieth-century, our representation of nature and life has been
reconfigured again and again. First the mass production of polymers by synthetic chemists
brought about what is called the “plastic age”. It encouraged the view that nature was rigid
and limited, in contrast to the plasticity and indefinite potentials of artefacts. (Bensaude-
Vincent, 2007). Since the mid-twentieth century, our understanding of the brain and of living
cells have been deeply transformed by cybernetics and information technology. Significantly,
it was in the 1960s, when cybernetics raised great enthusiasm, that biomimetism became its
own field of research. It was then named “bionics”, a term coined in 1958, and defined by Jack
Steele of the US Air Force as “the science of systems whose function is based on living systems,
or which have the characteristics of living systems, or which resemble these”. (quoted in
Vogel, 1998, p. 250) Bionics was thus centred on systems, while biomimetics was more
concerned with mechanics. According to Waren Mc Culloch in 1962, biomimetics
encompassed all areas in which organisms may copy each other. It included technological
inventions as much as, for example, the mimetic behaviours displayed by some insects.
Advances in Biomimetics

8
In the 1960s, computer technology provided the conceptual framework for molecular
biology. From the metaphor of the program, which prevailed through “the century of the

gene” to the more recent metaphor of “genetic circuitry” used in synthetic biology,
information technology has continuously inspired our understanding of life at the molecular
level. (Fox Keller, 1995, 2002) And molecular biology, in turn, inspired nanotechnology, at
least if we assume that Richard Feynman’s famous 1959 lecture at the meeting of the
American Institute of Physics actually foretold the future. His celebrated vision that “there is
plenty of room at the bottom” was explicitly inspired by the then recent discovery of DNA’s
structure and function by Francis Crick and James Watson. The storage of huge amounts of
information in DNA macromolecules persuaded him that it may be possible to store the
entire Library of Congress on the pin of a needle.
Nanotechnology illustrates well the self-reinforcing interaction between technological
paradigms and views of nature. According to the definition given in the US National
NanoInitiative, nanotechnology is: “Working at the atomic, molecular and supra-molecular
levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 – 100 nm range, in order to understand, create
and use materials, devices and systems with fundamentally new properties and functions
because of their small structure.“ (Roco, Bainbridge, Alivastos, 2000, p.3)
Having access to the nanoscale blurs a number of boundaries, which had been already
challenged by chemistry and materials science. On the one hand, nanoscientists argue that at
the nanoscale, the boundary between inanimate and living matter no longer makes sense.
DNA for example, is seen as a chemical macromolecule made up of four pairs of bases
which does not enjoy any privileged status such as witholding “the secret of life”. On the
other hand, the boundary between science and technology is also blurred, the ultimate
constituents of inorganic and organic systems are viewed through engineering lenses. The
building blocks of matter and life are considered as devices or machines. Atoms, molecules,
micelles, DNA, proteins and neurons, all natural entities are viewed as functional units
capable of performing interesting tasks. They are characterized by what they perform rather
than by what they are made of. Living systems are viewed as molecular manufactures and
the analogy is often used as proof that a particular project can be achieved – in other words,
if nature can do it, so can we.
Simultaneously, biologists describe the molecular components of cells as tools or machines
operating at the macromolecular level: Ribosomes are assembly lines for proteins, myosin

fibers are motors, polymerases are copy machines, membrane proteases are electric fences,
and so on. Even though biologists generally agree with the idea that living systems are the
results of blind and random evolution rather than of design, they still describe them as
devices designed for specific tasks. In the past, descriptions of organisms and cells as little
factories were occasionally used for teaching or popularizing purposes. But following the
introduction of the genetic code in the early times of molecular biology, these metaphors
became more than expository tools. They started providing heuristic models, and guidelines
for research and design.
Eric Drexler, one of the champions of nanotechnology, took the metaphor of the cell
machinery for granted and promoted his “molecular manufacture” as a biomimetic
manufacture. The main feature he retained from biology was that bio structures are built
from bottom-up, molecule-by-molecule rather than carved from bulk material. He could
then contrast two styles of technology: the conventional style, which prevailed from
prehistoric flint-choppers to micro-electronic chips works from the top down, and generates
waste, pollution and many nuisances. Molecular manufacturing, which shapes artefacts
A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics

9
atom-by-atom, would open a new era of clean, efficient, energy saving manufacturing.
Thanks to universal assemblers modelled after ribosomes, we should be able, in his view, to
pick and place atoms and dispense with dirty and messy chemical manufactures.
Thus, between nature and technology exists a two-way traffic of concepts, images and
models. As French philosopher Maurice Merleau Ponty pointed out in 1956: “We cannot
think about nature, without realizing that our idea of nature is permeated by artefacts”.
(Merleau Ponty, 1956, p. 120). Nature and artefacts are mutually defined by an ambivalent
relationship of connivance and rivalry.
7. How to deal with mimicry?
If nature and technology are continuously reconfigured in a process of mutual mimesis, we
may feel like we are trapped in a circle. All circles however are not necessarily “vicious”.
Indeed, analogies and attempts to mimic can prove extremely fruitful. Ironically though,

their heuristic power does not so much rest on analogies as it does on differences. I will
argue that mimicry is more interesting as a differentiation strategy than as attempts to copy
or emulate a model.
In particular, Drexler’s assumption that ‘bio is nano’ prompted many criticisms, and
emphasised the differences between our vision of machines and the “biological machinery”.
In an essay entitled Soft Machines, Richard Jones’s argued that the ‘machines’ found inside
living cells work on principles which are quite different from those of conventional
machines. (Jones, 2004) Firstly, living systems unlike organic chemistry do not use rigid
molecules: Proteins, for example, can readily change their shape and conformation.
Secondly, instead of channelling the traffic of materials by means of tubes and pipes, living
systems take advantage of Brownian motion, which moves molecules and continuously
bombards them with nano-objects. In addition, at the molecular level where bio-machinery
operates, inertia is no longer a crucial parameter, while surface forces, particularly viscosity,
determine whether or not nano-objects will stick together.


From a chemical perspective, the differences between the strategies used in the evolution of
life and laboratory procedures are also striking. Funnily enough, nature was never taught
laboratory procedures and laboratory procedures require conditions that are far from
common in nature such as high temperature, pressure, or vacuum. Chemists have been
taught how to work with pure and homogenous substances, which have stable
compositions. They can control reactions carried out at the bench, by limiting the number of
parameters involved. In contrast, natural substances are chemically impure and riddled
with faults; most of them are mixtures or composites. In addition, nature never uses metals
as structural material. Nature operates along lines, which look unorthodox to the eye of
ordinary chemists, at ambient temperature, and in the presence of a whole range of
perturbations.
The constraints in nature differ from the constraints met by chemists and materials
engineers in the laboratory. Through trial and error, nature spent billions of years designing
and perfecting high-performance structures capable of sustaining life. Life itself, according

to the Darwinian evolution, generated a great variety of species and selected the beneficial
variants. Engineers work in quite different conditions to evolution, which require projects,
planning, anticipation and selective pressures coming from time, money, safety, and
security. Despite its strong power of attraction, the view that nature is the perfect standard
for design is misleading. In fact, so great is the gap between human design and nature’s
Advances in Biomimetics

10
processes of fabrication, that any project of ‘technology transfer’ from nature to factory
would be totally inadequate.
Nature cannot provide a model for human technologies, because the same performance
criteria cannot be applied. Let us for a moment try to evaluate nature’s performances along
our criterion of optimization: What does optimization even mean for biosystems? Is it more
efficient devices? Our notion of efficiency rests on the principle of maximum de minimo: For
instance getting the highest resistance from the lowest quantity of matter, or getting a
maximum amount of benefits at minimum costs. (Quintinilla & Lawler, 2000) Obviously,
this kind of economical rationality does not even register in natural systems. Should we
therefore adopt a more qualitative definition of efficiency, such as being a match between
means and end? No sooner would we do this than we would stumble upon a new obstacle
to determine what the ends of nature may be. As long as we assume that biological
evolution is not a teleological process, it would be arbitrary to decide whether its ends are
reproduction, or survival, or adaptation for example; or whether these ends should concern
individuals or populations etc
8. Conclusion
Simply copying nature is out of the question. Strictly speaking, nature does not teach
anything. It does not deliver either lessons or recipes, which could be applied to
technological projects. Nature is basically inexorable, indifferent to our projects and
concerns. Living organisms may be seen as holding the answers to questions arising from
biological evolution, but they cannot meet our needs resulting from military and economic
competition, or societal concerns (for instance health, energy saving or pollution…).

Taking inspiration from nature is a more relevant attitude, and often results in a better
understanding of the differences between nature and technology. Bio-inspired designers
having to elucidate the principles at work in biomaterials, have to sort out the main
variables and constraints operating in the natural world and are gradually able to confront
them with the variables and constraints of technological design. In reality, we take
inspiration from our understanding of nature, which in itself is inspired from the dominant
technological paradigms of our time. The main merit of bio-inspiration is to emphasize the
differences between nature and technology and to restore the polarity, which technomimetic
strategies have tended to blur.
9. References
[anonymous] editorial (2009) Unbottling the genes, Nature Biotechnology, 27, 12, Dec 2009,
1059.
Bensaude-Vincent B. (2007) Reconfiguring nature through syntheses: From plastics to
biomimetics, In: The Artificial and the Natural. An Evolving Polarity, B. Bensaude-
Vincent , W.R. Newmann eds, p. 293-312, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Bensaude-Vincent, B.; Arribart, H.; Bouligand, Y. & Sanchez, C. (2002), Chemists at the
School of Nature, Journal of European Chemistry, 26, January 2002, 1-5.
Benyus, J.M. (1998), Biomimicry, Innovation inspired by Nature, Quill edition, New York.
Bernard, C. [1865] Introduction à l’étude de la méthode expérimentale en médecine, Flammarion,
Paris, 1984.
A Cultural Perspective on Biomimetics

11
Bernard, C. [1878] Leçons sur les phénomènes de la vie communs aux animaux et aux végétaux,
Vrin, Paris, 1966, p. 202-229.
Berthelot, M. (1860), La chimie organique fondée sur la synthèse, Alcan, Paris.
Brooke, J. H. (1968) Wöhler’s Urea and its Vital Force – A Verdict from the Chemists, Ambix,
15, 84–114.
Canguilhem, G. [1947] Machine et organisme, In: La connaissance de la vie, Vrin, Paris, 1971,
p. 101-127.

Emerton, N. (1994)The Scientific Reinterpretation of Form, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature, 438, 25 November, 449-453.
Fox Keller, E. (1995) Refiguring Life. Metaphors of Twentieth century Biology, Columbia
University Press, New York.
Fox Keller, E. (2002) The Century of the Gene, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.

Merleau-Ponty, M. [1956-57] La Nature. Notes. Cours du Collège de France, Editions du Seuil,
Paris, 1995.
Jones, R (2004) Soft Machines, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New-York.
Lowenstam H.A.; Weiner S. (1989) On Biomineralization, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
New York.
Mann, Stephen, Werbb John and Williams, Robert J.P. eds (1989) Biomineralization , Chemical
and Biological Perspectives, VCH, Weinheim:.
National Advisory Board (1994), Hierarchical Structures in Biology as a Guide for New Materials
Technology, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Newman, W. (1989) Technology and alchemical debate in the late middle ages, Isis, 80, 423-
445
Quintanilla M.; Lawler D. (2000) El concepto de eficiencia técnica, In: Denegri, G.M. &
Martinez, G.E. eds, Topicos actuales en filosofia da ciencia. Homenagem a Mario Bunge en
su 80° aniversario, p. 203-24, Universidad nacional de Mar del Plata, Mar del Plata.
Ramberg, P. (2000) The Death of Vitalism and the Birth of Organic Chemistry: Wölher’s
Urea Synthesis and the Disciplinary Identity of Chemistry, Ambix, 47, 170–195.
Riskin, J. (2007) Eighteenth-century wetware, In: B. Bensaude-Vincent , W.R. Newmann eds,
The Artificial and the Natural. An Evolving Polarity, pp. 239-274, MIT Press,
Cambridge Mass.
Roco, M.C.; Bainbridge W. & Alivastos, P. (2000), Nanotechnology Research Directions. IWGN
Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience Workshop Report, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
Boston.
Vogel, S. (1998) Cats' Paws and Catapults. Mechanical Worlds of Nature and People, Norton &
Company, New York, London.

Von Staden, H. (2007), Physis and technê in Greek Medicine, In: B. Bensaude-Vincent , W.R.
Newmann eds, The Artificial and the Natural. An Evolving Polarity, p. 21-49, MIT
Press, Cambridge Mass.
Whitesides, G. M.; Boncheva, M.(2002) Beyond molecules: Self-assembly of mesoscopic and
macroscopic components, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 99, April 16,
2002, 4769–4774.
Advances in Biomimetics

12
Whitesides G.M.; Grzybowski B. (2002) Self-assembly at all scales, Science, 295, March 19,
2002, 2418-21.
Zhang, S. (2003) Fabrication of novel biomaterials through molecular self-assembly, Nature
Biotechnology, 21, 10, Oct 2003, 1171-78.
2
Biomineralization and Biomimetic
Synthesis of Biomineral
and Nanomaterials
Ming-Guo Ma and Run-Cang Sun
Institute of Biomass Chemistry and Technology,
College of Materials Science and Technology,
Beijing Forestry University
P. R. China

1. Introduction
Biominerals and biomaterials with unique microstructure are mainly consisted of organic
and inorganic materials, and exhibit excellent biological and mechanical properties. The
formation mechanism of biomineral indicated that the organic matrixes have an important
influence on the morphology and structure of the inorganic matrix material in the process of
biomineralization. However, the biomineralization mechanism research of biomineral is still
in the initial stage, many phenomena need to be further explored, such as the effect of

organisms on the different morphologies and polymorphs of biominerals, the
biomineralization mechanism of the formation process of the biomineral in the existence of
organic matter. Biomineralization and biomimetic synthesis of biomineral and
nanomaterials have been receiving considerable attention. Biomineralization is the
formation process of mineral by organisms. Biomimetic synthesis is simulation of
biomineralization, using the mechanism of biomineralization, to achieve biomineral and
materials with special structure and function. In a word, biomimetic synthesis is learning
from the mineralization of organisms and learning from nature. Therefore, we should
understand the concepts, process, and mechanism of biomineralization, which was briefly
reviewed in section one.
Biomineral including calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite (HA), calcium silicate, calcium
carbonate, and calcium sulfate, are important calcium-based inorganic biodegradable
materials and have been widely used in biomedical field. Biomineralization is the
mineralization of biomineral. Biomimetic synthesis was first used in the fabrication of
biomineral. So it is necessary to provide an overview of the biomimetic synthesis of
biomineral. This chapter summarizes our recent endeavors on the biomimetic synthesis of
biomineral including HA, calcium silicate, CaCO
3
, BaCO
3
, and SrCO
3
, etc.
Biomineral synthesis includes morphology, structure, and function biomineral synthesis. It
is well known that the structure determines property and the morphology is the external
display of structure. Here, we intend to review recent progress in biomineral synthesis of
other nanomaterials.
Advances in Biomimetics

14

2. Biomimetic synthesis of calcium-based inorganic biodegradable
nanomaterials
2.1 Background
The biomineral in nature with different composition and specific biological functions
formed from the body of bacteria, microbes, plants, and animals has more than sixty kinds
of species. Among the half of the biomineral, calcium-based inorganic biodegradable
nanomaterials (CIBNs) including calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite (HA), calcium silicate,
calcium carbonate, and calcium sulfate, etc, are important materials and have been widely
used in biomedical fields such as bone cements (Islas-Blancas et al., 2001), drug delivery
(Kim et al., 2004), tooth paste additives (Oktar et al., 1999), dental implants (Gross et al.,
1998), gas sensors, ion exchange (Yasukawa et al., 2004), catalysts or catalysts supports
(Venugopal & Scurrell, 2003), and host materials for lasers (Garcia-Sanz et al., 1997).
Compared to biomedical polymer materials, CIBNs have received considerable attention
due to their excellent osteoconductivity, biocompatibility, bioactivity, biodegradablity,
chemical stability, and mechanical strength (Hing, 2004; Boskey et al., 2005; Wahl &
Czernuszka, 2006; Dorozhkin, 2007). CIBNs have some solubility, bonding ability between
biological tissues, releasing innoxious ions on the body and can promote repairment in
tissue. However, the traditional biodegradable materials mainly refer to polymers with
biodegradable ability such as poly(lactic acid) and poly(amino acid). So strengthen the
research of CIBNs as the expansion of biodegradable materials will do a favor to exploiting
the applications of biomedical materials.
For a long time, CIBNs have been considered as a kind of bioactivity materials. CIBNs, for
example bioactive glass, bioactive cement, HA, etc, have been found to have some solution
and absorption in the organism, and they had calcium and phosphorus element in their
composition, which can be replaced in the body's normal metabolism pathway through the
hydroxyl groups bonding to human tissue. The defect sites could be completely replaced by
new bone tissue after the implantation of CIBNs, while the CIBNs were only used as
temporary scaffolds. Some of CIBNs even took part in the formation of new bone. β-
tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) porous materials were fabricated by Getter et al. in 1972, and
they also made use of β-TCP as bone graft in 1977 (Cameron et al., 1977), and made clinical

bone fill experiment in 1978. Using β-TCP in bone regeneration experiment was first
reported in 1981 (Groot & Mitchell, 1981). In recent years, it was found that β-TCP is a good
tissue engineering scaffold material in biomedical field. This type of material has some
advantages including the gradual degradation in the organisms’ metabolic process, the
process of replacement and growth of new bone, without prejudice to newly grown bone in
material substitution process.
It is well known that the naturally tooth and bone are organic/inorganic composites with
the ingredients including calcium phosphate, HA, calcium silicate, and calcium carbonate.
Especially, HA is similar in composition to bone mineral, has been found to promote new
bone formation when being implanted in a skeletal defect, and has been used in clinical
bone graft procedures for about 30 years. However, its poor tensile strength and fracture
toughness make it unsuitable for practical applications. It was discovered that naturally
derived tooth HA did not differ from synthetic ones (Oktar et al., 1999). A nanostructured
HA was thermally sprayed on Ti-6Al-4V substrates via high velocity oxy-fuel, and a
uniform layer of apatite was formed via immersing the coating in a simulated body fluid
(SBF) for 7 days (Lima et al., 2005). Thian et al (2006). fabricated nanocrystalline silicon-
substituted HA thin coatings with enhanced bioactivity and biofunctionality applied to a
Biomineralization and Biomimetic Synthesis of Biomineral and Nanomaterials

15
titanium substrate via a magnetron co-sputtering process. An increase in the attachment and
growth of human osteoblast-like (HOB) cells on these coatings was observed throughout the
culture period, with the formation of extracellular matrix. Biomedical nanocomposite fibers
of HA/poly(lactic acid) with homogeneous structure were synthesized by electrospinning
(Kim et al., 2006). Initial cellular assays indicated excellent cell attachment and proliferation.
In this section, we briefly review the interrelated papers concerning the biomimetic fabrication,
mechanism, and future development of CIBNs. The chapter also provides an overview about
the potential application of nanotechnology in biomedical field (Ma & Zhu, 2010).
2.2 Fabrication of calcium-based inorganic biodegradable nanomaterials
Some successful methods including precipitation, hydrothermal, microemulsion, sol-gel,

biomimetic synthesis have been employed for the synthesis of CIBNs. The liquid phase
precipitation method is one of the earliest methods for the synthesis of CIBNs. In recent
years, the system such as Ca(OH)
2
-H
3
PO
4
-H
2
O, Ca(NO
3
)
2
-NH
4
NO
3
-NH
3
·H
2
O, CaCl
2
-
K
2
HPO
4
-KOH, and CaHPO

4
-Ca
4
(PO
4
)
2
O-H
2
O has been adopted in the preparation of HA
(Tarasevich et al., 2003; Lu & Leng, 2005; Kanakis et al., 2006). However, impurities were
also observed as the byproducts. Some successful strategies including chemical mechanical
vapor deposition (Chi, 2010), mechano-chemical process (Tofighi & Rey, 2010), dual nozzle
spray drying techniques (Chow & Sun, 2010), high alumina fly ash (Zhang et al., 2009), have
been also employed for the synthesis of CIBNs.
HA and calcium silicate are the typical examples among the CIBNs. HA has a composition
and structure analogous to the bone apatite and shows high bioactivity (Suchanek et al.,
2002; Landi et al., 2004 ; Sun et al., 2009). Calcium silicate is used in drug delivery and bone
tissue regeneration due to its good biocompatibility, bioactivity, and degradability
(Matsuoka et al., 1999; Oyane et al., 2003; Cortes et al., 2004; Li & Chang, 2005; Jain et al.,
2005; Kokubo et al., 2005). Recently, the key point of the present research aims to the
synthesis of HA (Rudin et al., 2009) and calcium silicate nanostructures by novel methods.
Liu et al (2005). fabricated HA nanoribbon spheres by a one-step reaction using the bioactive
eggshell membrane as a directing template in the presence of ethylenediamine. The authors
indicated that spheres can be modified with fluorescein to obtain a fluorescent probe
material with strong luminescence. HA nanorods were formed by the liquid-solid solution
method reported by Wang et al.(2006). The bubble-template route is also employed to
synthesize flower-like porous B-type carbonated HA microspheres (Cheng et al., 2009).
Using double emulsion droplets as microreactors, mesoporous HA could be fabricated
(Shum et al., 2009). The size and the geometry of the droplet microreactors can be tuned by

using capillary microfluidic techniques. We reported the synthesis of hierarchically
nanostructured HA hollow spheres using CaCl
2,
NaH
2
PO
4
, and potassium sodium tartrate
via a solvothermal method at 200 °C for 24 h in water/N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF)
mixed solvents, HA microtubes using CaCl
2
and NaH
2
PO
4
in mixed solvents of water/DMF
by a solvothermal method at 160 °C for 24 h (Fig. 1) (Ma et al., 2008; Ma & Zhu, 2009).
Currently, the research of CIBNs has been focus on β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), CaSO
4
,
calcium silicate, and some natural materials such as natural coral (primarily composed of
CaCO
3
) and its composite materials. These materials are mainly used in bone substitute
materials, or scaffolds for tissue engineering. The drug loading and releasing materials are
mostly made of the biodegradable polymers. With the development of CIBNs, their
application can also be extended to controlled drug delivery system.